On 14 Mag, 14:05, subtenante <zzsubtenant...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure it makes better performance to have NULLs. They add 1 bit
> to every field that can take a NULL value, and they don't make
> searches faster as far as I know.

oh, stupid NULLs. i guess i shouldn't make assumptions.

in the and, i think I'll follow the non-EAV approach, with two tables.

two, because, even if they ideally should be only a single table, the
first one will be used MUCH more than the second one, so having them
separate should increase speed when accessing the first one, i guess.
I'm guessing again. well, this have to be correct.